Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Again you think you can win the debate by manipulating words. Have you ever noticed how different dictionaries use different words to define the same words. Would you say there is no agreement for the definition every word because all definitions are not exactly the same?Here is a good explanation about what a scientific theory is.

quote:

---

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers...
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the continental drift theory, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories have been tested and verified and are generally accepted by scientists beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

---

Hypothesis, theory, law - Google Docs#

It's SO funny how the contents of rocks are interpreted in terms of time when all they really are is the accidental burial of living things during the worldwide Flood. A lot of them is considered to be a time period when there was a huge growth of living things; a paucity of them is considered to be an "extinction event." SO funny.But I don't recall that anyone has answered the question that is the topic of the thread: "Any practical use for UCA?" Or the ToE itself for that matter? All that anyone has offered that I recall -- correct me if I'm wrong and please repeat any other kiinds of arguments -- has nothing to do with the UCA OR the ToE, but is just the usual reference to ordinary variation within a given species. Another way evos misread the facts and deceive themselves. Yes it IS funny, but really it's more sad than funny.

So all you have is bullshit and a weird sense of humor.The BULLSHIT QUEEN, now that's funny.

I AM mightily impressed with how the brilliant scientists here so often prefer to give an empty ad hominem instead of a substantive answer to a substantive argument, which mine was.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, I was hoping you would be impressed.You are peddling the same bullshit you have always peddled, so no answer necessary.

I post my answers to the same old stuff you are peddling. My answers don't change as your ridiculous beliefs don't change. The Flood explains it all just fine, all the stuff you believe shows evolution. It doesn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But of course it doesn't. No creationist has ever been able to explain the "hydraulic sorting" or demonstrate how it could actually happen.

Nor can any evolutionist explain how to get from one species to another given the limitations of the genome of any given species that amounts to a program for that species and no other.But not being able to say "how" something happened doesn't change the compelling evidence that the Flood does indeed account for the facts in a more rational way than the ToE does.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But that "limitation on the genome" doesn't exist - no creationist has ever been able to demonstrate that it does, or even explain how it could.

I've explained it many times.

And we have shot it down every time.

So biostratigraphy is wrong because Faith things that it is funny.Now I understand. Hilarious! Ignorance and denial win again! I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

But not legitimately.

It's too reasonable for you I guess, you really do have to subscribe to the utterly irrational standard view. Just thinking outside your box might be a worthwhile exercise.ABE: Oh I hardly dare think of what would happen, everything would just come apart at the seams I guess, if a fine scientist such as yourself ever recognized that an uneducated creationist really might be right and standard geology wrong about something.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm mot the least bit concerned. First, I seriously doubt that will happen; and second, my my mind doesn't shatter with the the introduction of new information.